CFIT

[worrab]

YouTube - Close call with terrain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nm8pNgqBAk) :eek:

[Intercepted]

I hope FAA got the video and details about this pilot.

[moonym20]

Holy s :mad: t :ooh:

[RatherBeFlying]

There's 4 folks in Algonquin Park, Ontario doing pretty much the same stupidity who were not as lucky:(

[Lister Noble]

I can't believe they were laughing about it on the ground afterwards.

Maybe some of these scary videos should be shown to us when we are students?
Lister

[liam548]

Just plodding along in zero vis in a valley.
Might as well drive down the M1 with your eyes closed...

Pathetic

[Torque Tonight]

Crikey! The ONLY options you have when entering IMC inadvertently at low level are an immediate 180* turn to get out of it straight away or if you have the IF skills an immediate climb to above safety altitude and pick up a radar service.

To happily continue not just below safety altitude but actually below the height of surrounding terrain is suicidal. I cannot comprehend how these guys would consider that a reasonable course of action.

[ShyTorque]

To fly like that is sheer folly.

To put it on YouTube is almost as stupid.... :hmm:

[RatherBeFlying]

I can't believe they were laughing about it on the ground afterwards.I once had a very narrow escape when a road went over a rise and suddenly dead ended at the lip of a steep slope without any signs posted:mad: I stopped a few feet short from going over the edge and the first thing I did was an involuntary laugh. I witnessed the same reaction from another driver whose car overturned, but was uninjured.

It happens when you can't believe your extremely lucky escape:}

[Halfbaked_Boy]

RatherBeFlying,

But it's usually during aforementioned stupid laugh that your demise will come about in a very unexpected (and somewhat comical) way! For example, banana skin, acidic bird s**t etc :)

p.s. regarding the vid, some posters have referred to the two gentleman up front as pilots... really?

[IO540]

I am sure many people have done worse stuff but it did not end up on film. There are plenty of clowns around.

I know one man who was flying along in poor vis, in and out of IMC, and a wind turbine blade passed right in front of him. He never did that again...

The ONLY options you have when entering IMC inadvertently at low level are an immediate 180* turn to get out of it straight away or if you have the IF skills an immediate climb to above safety altitude and pick up a radar service.

I think a 180 is the best option unless one has a GPS running a real topo chart. A climb straight ahead, say +500fpm, could just take you into a hill.

But why fly so low to start with?

[Maoraigh1]

If you can't get out with a 180 turn, put the plane down before you are in cloud. Climbing without a good, preplanned, gps track, will have a high risk of hitting something in hilly country.
Why fly a single engine over cloud covered mountains? You're safer following the valleys, provided you keep a few hundred feet below any cloud you see, as well as a few hundred feet above the terrain, and for your legal visibility take the distance at which you can see a low cloud against a grey background, not a white house on dark moorland.

[172driver]

Not sure I would call this CONTROLLED flight into terrain...:=

[172driver]

You're safer following the valleys, provided you keep a few hundred feet below any cloud you see, as well as a few hundred feet above the terrain,

Errr.... no, you are most definitely NOT safer doing this :eek: What you describe here is the route to perdition of several pilots every year - ducking under a cloud base, getting further and further into a valley. Until there is no more space to turn. The result is usually contained in an AAIB report :sad:

[Maoraigh1]

I don't fly valleys unless I can see a way through. With 1000+ feet between surface and cloud, it's safer than on top with a single engine.. If I do get caught, without being able to do a 180, I'll put the plane down rather than climb into cloud.

[172driver]

Good luck to you - just don't take any passengers :ugh::ugh:

[IO540]

Why fly a single engine over cloud covered mountains? You're safer following the valleys, provided you keep a few hundred feet below any cloud you see, as well as a few hundred feet above the terrain, and for your legal visibility take the distance at which you can see a low cloud against a grey background, not a white house on dark moorland.

I agree 100% with 172driver.

Loads of people get killed every year doing this. It requires expert local knowledge, very good aircraft handling (slow speed turns, etc), and appreciation of local weather conditions.

I have overflown the Alps and other bits, above an overcast. The only risk is an engine failure, but scud running in the valleys carries many more risks than that.

[Torque Tonight]

The key is not to get yourself in a situation where inadvertent IMC becomes a possibility in the first place. It should almost always be avoidable in recreational flying. If it looks unavoidable, a precautionary landing would be advisable.

If inadvertent IMC does occur, I believe that the best course of action for a non IMCR/IR pilot is the 180* level turn. For a pilot and aircraft capable of instrument flight it is my opinion that climbing to safety altitude is generally the safest option. If there is hilly terrain in the area, maneouvring laterally could be the least safe option. A zoom climb to stabilize at the best angle of climb speed will get you away from the ground with the least risk of hitting something solid. How well would a right 180* turn have gone in the video above? Just my opinion.

[Pace]

Torque Tonight has it almost right IMO.

How would a right 180 have worked for these guys other than driving straight into high ground?

Full power climb and corkscrew up keeping the turn tight and not standard.
On reaching SSA change to IFR keep a little extra speed for the tighter turn.

If not IFR capable dont enter cloud. Turn visual, accept the altitude to keep out of cloud and do a 180 back from whence you came. But I stress keeping visual which means NOT in cloud.

Pace

[foxmoth]

Full power climb and corkscrew up keeping the turn tight and not standard.

Why corkscrew up - if you have been flying up a valley, presumably the valley goes straight on and turning either way might put you into the side, plus, even if you are current in flying IMC a corkscrew manouver can be very dissorientating - if you are flying there then you [I]should[I] have an idea where the valley goes after you become IMC, so climb doing your best to follow the center of the valley.:rolleyes:

[IO540]

Statistically you can hit a hill in any direction - except right behind you :)

This is why a tight 180 is statistically the best option - if you know nothing certain about the topography.

If OTOH you are sure that you are only just above the terrain, a zoom climb from cruise might gain you 1000ft and take you to a safe level.

However, psychology comes into this heavily. It is easy to just press on and end up with no options. Nobody willingly flies into a hill, yet many do.

[Pace]

Foxmouth

We are talking about being in cloud inadvertanly or whatever so you wouldnt see up your valley!

You are already in a high risk situation low level in IMC surrounded by high terrain.

The best way out IMO is to try and remain in as near as one spot until you have climbed above the MSA.
i presume if your in cloud that you are IFR and IMC capable? If you cannot handle a turning climb without being disorientated then maybe you shouldnt be there or need to go back for further training.

Valleys have a habit of branching off or coming to a dead end so dont presume a climb ahead is safe.

If you can see up your valley remain that way and if forced down too low do your 180 back to where you know there are better conditions.

Pace

[foxmoth]

i presume if your in cloud that you are IFR and IMC capable?

I would think if you are IMC capable you should not be messing about trying to stay VMC below! Also I would think anyone with any sense (not that these people showed much in this case) would know both what the valley was like ahead of them and how wide it is, knowing this would help decide if a 180 or climb straight ahead was the best option, even in VMC I would not be flying like this without knowing my escape options.

[BoeingMEL]

I think maybe you should modify or withdraw your posts! Someone who finds themself in the situation you describe MAY be lucky and MAY get away with it but pilots should never play Russian Roulette...should they? I'm with 172 driver 100% on this. Cheers anyway bm

ps The (otherwise) brilliant Neil Williams found himself in a valley flying a Heinkel 1-11 ... the mountains got higher as the valley narrowed - until he had neither the performance to climb-out nor the width to turn. He persihed of course.

[dont overfil]

Maoraigh1,
One of our instructors discovered power lines across the valley doing that. He was lucky to survive and even managed to fly the damaged aircraft back to base!
DO.

[BabyBear]

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/in ... ticle=6153 (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=6153)

[Maoraigh1]

To clarify: If I can't see ahead, or do a 180, I said I will put the plane down. I will not fly at the height at which powerlines pylons are, and note where they cross a valley or water at greater height.
The most dangerous advice is to climb, in cloud, in hilly country. To suggest a spiral climb in cloud is to suggest suicide.

[172driver]

To suggest a spiral climb in cloud is to suggest suicide.


That may well be the only thing you're somewhat right about. Other than that ALL your ideas are tantamount to suicide, albeit in a somewhat more direct (and dare I say, less elegant) fashion. Awaiting the AAIB report on your activities :ugh:

[worrab]

I suspect Maoraigh1 may be suggesting a precautionary landing whilst in VMC rather than a 3* descent through cloud onto (into) the side of a hill.

[IO540]

A precautionary landing (what a lovely euphemism) is what is taught (as a theory) in the PPL, and while it is going to be the safest option in the "totally stuffed by weather all around" scenario, it goes so severely against pilot psychology that very few people actually do it. Very few owners will do it because of the 4-digit cost of carting the plane out on a trailer, and that assumes a perfect landing. It may also be highly dangerous, depending on the terrain.

Far better to plan the flight at/above the MSA, and keep an escape route open at all times.

Flights that are actually executed at/above the MSA, with a turnback if unable to maintain VMC, are extremely unlikely to result in a total loss of escape options. It is the people who fly below the MSA, say 500ft above the ground, who get squeezed between the terrain and the clouds.

Yet, flying below the MSA is routine practice among VFR pilots, most of whom never do an altitude plan. The MSA business was the one good thing I was taught in the PPL and it never occured to me to do anything else when enroute. I'd rather fly in IMC.... ;)

[worrab]

...but if you've read all the doomy articles that say that if you fly out-of-practice into IMC the wings will fall off (I think I read somewhere that the average pre-spiral-dive/wing departure/survival time for unprepared/unpracticed/unexpected IMC was about 75 seconds) then a precautionary landing onto that nice smooth-looking (though in all likelihood boggy and rock-strewn) valley floor must appear to be an attractive proposition.
I'm not a huge fan of the 180* turn unless you're certain that you're clear of terrain and if the guys in the vid had tried a right 'U' turn I suspect they'd have had a lot worse than a wrecked gorse bush.
Frankly, I'd have thought that when the deck met the sky for them the only way was up. Get above the MSA ASAP and then sort it out - but then a) I'm in a comfy chair at the moment, b) I'm not getting hammered by downdraught rolling off the hilltops and (perhaps most importantly) c) it's a piece of cake to keep out of aeronautical trouble when you're not in an airplane/aeroplane.

[RatherBeFlying]

Far better to plan the flight at/above the MSA, and keep an escape route open at all times.The tight spiral climb in IMC gives me the willies. Next to one of the ridges will likely be severe downdraft -- or the wind will blow you across the valley into something. We're talking mountain flying here. By the way, do you know where any cables are?

Best deal of all is in a helicopter moving slowly. I've had the privilege of observing an expert from the left seat working around scud in mountainous valleys. 70 kt. was as fast as he flew that day and he had a few miles viz. How fast was the Bonanza driver flying?

[Piper.Classique]

Loads of people get killed every year doing this. It requires expert local knowledge, very good aircraft handling (slow speed turns, etc), and appreciation of local weather conditions.

Well, for all you know the poster may have that skill and knowledge. I agree it isn't for everyone or indeed every type of aircraft. You did note the mention of space above and below?

[bjornhall]

To clarify: If I can't see ahead, or do a 180, I said I will put the plane down. I will not fly at the height at which powerlines pylons are, and note where they cross a valley or water at greater height.

Makes perfect sense to me!

Could have something to do with "hilly" vs "mountaneous"; when MSA is well above 10000 ft, or when MSA (in the IFR sense) is 5000, cloud base is 4500 and valley floors are 2000, going through valleys is of course the way to do it. Obviously you need to know what you're doing.

Trying to squeeze through the 200 ft gap between the stratus clouds and the South Downs is something else entirely; maybe that is what some of the outraged posters here have in mind.

"You can't fly in mountains because you have neither an IR nor oxygen" is not a helpful answer IMHO. Of course, I would love to have those things! :)

[IO540]

Next to one of the ridges will likely be severe downdraft

Only if it is windy.

[englishal]

I had a look around an aeroplane that made a "precautionary" landing. The engine was losing oil, but running perfectly fine so the pilot elected to land in a field that was too short. It trashed the aeroplane and nearly killed the pilot who spent weeks in hospital. Looking at the remains it is a wonder that they weren't killed, even the panel was concave.

I'd put the GPS into the TAWS page, and climb, keeping the red bits out of my route of flight.....Actually long before this situation I'd have climbed to a safe level and continued IFR ;)

[172driver]

To clarify: If I can't see ahead, or do a 180, I said I will put the plane down. I will not fly at the height at which powerlines pylons are, and note where they cross a valley or water at greater height.

Makes perfect sense to me!

And that's what worries me.

One by one:

- seeing ahead: fine if you fly through a gap in mountains or a very short valley, where you can actually see the other side - and, importantly, know there is not another valley hiding there!

- do a 180: fine, IF valley is wide enough and IF the wx hasn't closed in behind you. Doesn't seem to work too well in practice, though, as by the time most pilots realize they are up the creek - they literally are, and there's not enough space left.

- put the plane down: laughable. This whole idea of 'precautionary landing' only works if you have options. Examples: having a line of CBs across your path and not enough room to divert. Find a little airfield, land, wait. Approaching mountains, find the wx cr*p, cannot outclimb - turn around and land somewhere. 'Putting the plane down' in a mountain valley in a distress situation ? Funnily, these valleys don't tend to have airfields (or any fields, for that matter). Think rocks and bog and trees.

- not fly at pylon height: great idea in flat country. Not such a great idea in mountains, where power cables, and cablecars span valleys at any height. The VFR charts of Alpine countries have the bigger ones - but there are loads of smaller installations that will get you just as well.

I am not saying you cannot fly through valleys. Of course you can and in some situations it is the only way to get to the other side. However, you need to understand what you're attempting to do, have a thorough preflight briefing and make notes of possible 180-turning points along your way.

However, the safe bet is ALWAYS to stay on top of the mountains, above MSA. In aviation, height (above ground) is your friend !

[Brian Abraham]

totally stuffed by weather all around" scenario, it goes so severely against pilot psychology that very few people actually do it
It's interesting what people will do when they find themselves in extremis. A local guy in a 172 with 3 pax found himself inadvertently in IMC, lost control, popped out of the cloud base, regained control and found himself in a valley hemmed in on all sides by cloud. He would have flown around in the valley until fuel exhaustion, the weather being so bad with no escape route. The only avenue open to him he thought was to make a controlled "landing" into the canopy of the 150 foot forest and hope for the best. "Landing" completed the aircraft fell to the forest floor and all escaped with nothing more than scratches. They were subsequently winched out by one of our helos.

[Fuji Abound]

I think all that really comes out of a very well worn discussion is that flying in mountains is a specialist skill. It can be done, and it can be done safely, in just the same way you can scud run entirely safely. The danger is in suggesting it is for everyone - and anyone. It requires experience, skill and training.

As to getting caught below the base with no where to go.

My view is this. If you have done some instrument flying and feel capable of executing a climb to MSA then it is an option worth considering. You need to understand that you might not be able to climb into VMC and you also need to understand that as soon as you are above the MSA you need help. Get on the radio and ask for it.

If you have never done any instrument flying at all then really your own option is to land. It might not be pretty. However if you enter cloud more than likely the outcome will be worse. I am afraid it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

[IO540]

He would have flown around in the valley until fuel exhaustion, the weather being so bad with no escape route. The only avenue open to him he thought was to make a controlled "landing" into the canopy of the 150 foot forest and hope for the best. "Landing" completed the aircraft fell to the forest floor and all escaped with nothing more than scratches. They were subsequently winched out by one of our helos.

Somebody I know of did this too, and was much less fortunate. Landing on top of trees is highly dodgy.

A genuine free fall through 150ft will totally wreck the airframe and everybody inside, so I think the reality was a bit different on this one.

This is the worst-case scenario; a pilot with zero IMC skills. This is why I think nobody should go flying anywhere unless they can fly (simply) in IMC.

[Bla Bla Bla]

Allot of idea's from allot of people, but when flying in big mountains that you cannot simply out climb in your SEP you spend most of the time checking behind you so you do not get trapped in that sort of rubbish. Keep the back door open at all times and always have an escape route in the mountains. Its simple any good mountain pilot will turn away from that sort of weather way before it becomes an emergency. Its not what you will do once you are in it, its what you will do before you are in it.

I found my time private flying around the South downs of England not as informative as my years commercial flying around the Southern Alps of NZ.:}

[bjornhall]

And that's what worries me.

Difference between us. I think you've got the whole thing backwards, but I'm not the least bit worried. I care about how I fly, I don't care how you do it. :)

- seeing ahead: fine if you fly through a gap in mountains or a very short valley, where you can actually see the other side - and, importantly, know there is not another valley hiding there!

Yes. So why are you so upset then? "I only fly through valleys if I can see a way through", remember?

- do a 180: fine, IF valley is wide enough and IF the wx hasn't closed in behind you. Doesn't seem to work too well in practice, though, as by the time most pilots realize they are up the creek - they literally are, and there's not enough space left.

You read too many accident reports. Might be worth recalling that there are no reports written when that method succeeds. It is a rare exception that pilots don't make it out a valley one way or the other, so "most pilots" might be a stretch.

- put the plane down: laughable. This whole idea of 'precautionary landing' only works if you have options. Examples: having a line of CBs across your path and not enough room to divert. Find a little airfield, land, wait. Approaching mountains, find the wx cr*p, cannot outclimb - turn around and land somewhere. 'Putting the plane down' in a mountain valley in a distress situation ? Funnily, these valleys don't tend to have airfields (or any fields, for that matter). Think rocks and bog and trees.

Putting the plane down is always an option. Pilots who disagree to that have one less tool to use to avoid becoming fatalities. It will most likely destroy the plane and it is not unlikely to result in injuries or worse, but it is an option. Lots and lots of accidents would have been avoided if pilots had used it. Difficult decision, yes, but flying isn't always easy!

However, the safe bet is ALWAYS to stay on top of the mountains, above MSA. In aviation, height (above ground) is your friend !

Any sentence with an "always" in it is necessarily mistaken. The list of exceptions is endless; ice, high winds at high altitude, how do you get above MSA, how do you get back down again, what if MSA is higher than you can fly (oxygen etc), and so on and so forth.

I think a safe pilot should know more than one way to fly. :ok:

[Stephen Furner]

I seem to recall reading a magazine item a while ago that claimed the Antonov AN2 manual suggested when all else failed the aircraft could be stalled and mushed down to a safe landing. The claim being that in this configuration the aircraft will descend at a slow enough speed for the under carriage to be able to absorb the landing impact energy allowing those on board to walk away unharmed.

In the absence of a ballistic parachute this might be a strategy for bringing a light aircraft safely down to a valley floor where its handling characteristics allow if caught out in IMC. If the aircraft becomes VFR during the decent it could be flown on to a powered landing.

When I stall my C172 it will mush down at about 500ft per min which is roughly 5.7 miles an hour. Intuitively this sounds within the capabilities of the under carriage although I have no data on its performance specification to confirm this. Certainly I suspect there would be a better chance of survival from a vertical 5.7 miles an hour impact than CFIT into a valley wall at the typical cruise speed of 95Knots.

In poor weather there may well be a risk of a turbulence induced wing drop developing into a spin because there will be little or no control authority available to take corrective action to prevent it developing.

This kind of tactic if it works is I think a last hope attempt to manage down the risk of damage in an inevitable contact with the terrain.

[scooter boy]

"Inadvertent" IMC? - what a joke that is.

It is only ever really inadvertent at night and even then you can usually tell you are about to enter cloud if there is any moonlight or ground lighting at all.

Otherwise it is never inadvertent.

Our VFR only bonanza "pilot" will have had significant warning as the cloud filled in and should never have ended up in this situation. Cloud entry is almost never truly inadvertent from day VFR.

I would guess the poor schmuck doing the VT in the back (A) was not a pilot (B) had no idea he was nearly murdered by someone else's horrendous misjudgement. The tone of the piece is almost "beware mountains can sneak up on you" rather than "beware the murderous newbie PPL who wants to show off his new toy to you".

...I hope he learned from it - and after landing I hope he punched the "pilot" as hard as he could and vowed never to fly with him again ...

[englishal]

When I stall my C172 it will mush down at about 500ft per min which is roughly 5.7 miles an hour. Intuitively this sounds within the capabilities of the under carriage although I have no data on its performance specification to confirm this. Certainly I suspect there would be a better chance of survival from a vertical 5.7 miles an hour impact than CFIT into a valley wall at the typical cruise speed of 95Knots.
Sounds a bit low to me. I think I calculated that our Rallye had a vertical descent rate of about 15 mph in a full stall, and that is nicknamed the "tin parachute". Still 15mph is survivable and there is a story going around of someone running out of fuel at night in a Rallye and doing just that....

Don't forget though that when stalled you still have forward velocity, so could be travelling 30mph+ forward when you touch down.

I wouldn't fly around high mountains with "mountain obscuration" at the tops, when the MSA was > 9-10,000'. If the IMC was low down, say topping at 6k then I'd climb on top, or land...

[IO540]

When I stall my C172 it will mush down at about 500ft per min which is roughly 5.7 miles an hour. Intuitively this sounds within the capabilities of the under carriageThe velocity, and thus the energy which needs to be dissipated, is the vector sum of the forward velocity (say 50kt) and the vertical velocity (say 5kt) i.e. slightly over 50kt.

In fact one could make the vertical velocity zero - by pulling up a bit at the point of impact. But that still leaves the whole forward velocity to dump.

If you do this at an airport, it's called a landing :)

The other thing is that few GA planes will be long term stable in roll, especially if there are significant roll disturbances. So, loss of control in IMC will rapidly result in the "spiral of death", unless the pilot does something reasonably sensible (like keeping wings level).

I gather some flexwing microlights are stable in roll and upon IMC entry one could just take one's hands off and the thing will descend with wings level, but GA spamcans won't do that.

I agree with SB there is probably no such thing as inadvertent IMC entry, but psychology is a big factor in this, and people do press on into poor vis which then becomes poorer vis, etc. Nobody likes the idea of turning back.

[JP1]

To fly like that is sheer folly.

To put it on YouTube is almost as stupid.... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif


If you read the comments below the video, the Youtube poster and the guy with the video camera have made comments.

They are simply (3) friends of the guy having a ride in the L-39 and went in the Bonaza to film their friend, non of them are pilots. I assume they did not know the pilot of the Bonaza either.

The video has been posted to clearly show the idiotic behaviour of the pilot that nearly killed them. They have handed the video onto the FAA to be investigated.

[IO540]

This rather older one (http://www.bluerobin.flyer.co.uk/trinidad_icing.rtf) is pretty amazing too. Thread here (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=19997&highlight=tb20).

I recall when the pilot first wrote about it in the Socata TB user group, c. 2006. From there, it "escaped" into the wild somehow...

[Stephen Furner]

Good point about the forward velocity.:ok:

Treating this as a simple right angled triangle in a straightforward parallelogram of forces. Square of the vector for the decent path of the aircraft will be the forward vector (stall speed) squared plus the vertical decent rate squared. Which is (50 x 50) + (6 x 6) = 2500 + 36 = Therefore the speed of impact at touch down is SQRT2536 = 50 mph. :uhoh:

Clearly it’s the forward velocity that is the dominant factor no matter how slow the decent rate as result of mushing down in a stalled configuration. The more the forward velocity can be reduced the lower the impact speed. Even if were possible to get the forward velocity down to the 6 mph of the decent rate the impact speed will still be around 8 mph.:ooh:

It looks like the key to making this manoeuvre work is to reduce the forward speed as much as possible by increasing the depth of the stall, turning into wind or maintaining enough control authority to flare before touchdown.

In a confined space of a valley turning into wind isn’t an option so there may be well be additional speed if there is a tailwind.:bored:

[Piper.Classique]

Clearly it’s the forward velocity that is the dominant factor no matter how slow the decent rate as result of mushing down in a stalled configuration. The more the forward velocity can be reduced the lower the impact speed. Even if were possible to get the forward velocity down to the 6 mph of the decent rate the impact speed will still be around 8 mph.

I'm not sure you have the whole picture here. The aircraft's crashworthiness may well depend on what hits first, and a high rate of descent with low forward velocity might not be the best configuration for survivability. If you are genuinely stalled there is of course no possiblity of a flare. Mushing down in a stalled condition the rate of descent is quite high. It might be better to wipe off the undercarriage with some forward movement and a lower rate of descent. Any engineers here who could clarify? Any pilots here who actually do mountain flying in a serious way? Or are we all just guessing?
So far I see no-one suggesting a parachute for the pilot. Of course, I wear one when flying a glider, in France it is actually a requirement. Problem is, when we are scraping along a ridge at 8000 feet amsl we often only have about 50 feet clearance at the wing tip, and not a lot more underneath. We do take _VERY_ great care to stay VMC. Which is probably the way to go with less than two engines anyway

[englishal]

Any engineers here who could clarify? Any pilots here who actually do mountain flying in a serious way? Or are we all just guessing?
High mountains and IMC don't mix unless you have 4 turbofans, and 400 seats on-board and are 30,000' above ;)

I think the best option is to remain flying until touch down. Physics says that as long as you don't decelerate too quickly (i.e. hit a tree) then you can probably walk away. I seem to remember a Indy Car driver experiencing 130G in an impact and he walked away, a bit bruised but ok. You need a relatively short distance to decelerate to pull less than 9G. 25m landing "roll" at 40 kts will pull 8g if my high school physics is correct -easily survivable - some people do this for fun !

[IO540]

The basic point is that no matter what you do, you can't fly slower than Vs.

The ground contact will always be made at a speed around that figure, at best.

I once read, from a famous aerobatic champion, that upon entry into IMC one could enter a flat spin and spin all the way down through the cloud. Presumably he would have intended to recover below the cloud... otherwise it's true his forward speed would have been low but what about the vertical speed? Maybe that is quite low as well - not something I want to try in the TB20 :)

In general, the term "mountain flying" is intended to mean flying in the canyons. Often this is done with the tops shrouded in cloud. This is done a lot in the Alps, where you have huge valleys with flat bottoms, and often the cloudbase is thousands of feet above the bottoms. The pilots that do this are trained to know the area well, and to not enter valleys which are a tight dead end, etc.

I would not do any of that - I fly straight across the top at FL160-190.

[Wrong Stuff]

If you can simply stall an aircraft to a safe crash landing then Cirrus have wasted an awful lot of effort attaching effin great rocket-propelled parachutes to their aircraft and using impact absorbing undercarriages and seats to cushion the crash. I bet they wish they'd just tried stalling it in first.

[englishal]

The ground contact will always be made at a speed around that figure, at best.
unless you have a 40 kt headwind ;)

[gasax]

I have a reasonable level of experience of flying in mountains (well high ground!) in IMC. The point is at what height does the IMC start?

It is entirely possible to fly across high ground VMC below a solid ceiling. It needs to be high enough and you need to really, really know where you are. But it is very commonly carried out.

The 'received wisdom' seems to be if you enter IMC you climb and get above safety altitude. Well nice idea, but reallt difficult to achieve.

If you end up in a 'dead end', the chances of outclimbing the terrain are pretty poor. Most light singles struggle to get 1000fpm - as a gradient it might suit railways, to outclimb the average hill it is completely inadequate.

If you run out of VFR conditions you have a very short time to decide whether you throw the dice and hope you are flying up the valley whilst you climb or you force land.

A forced landing up a hill can result in a ground speed of virutally nothing. fly up the slope, hold off and then land - the ground spped if carried out well is virtually nothing

[gasax]

I have a reasonable level of experience of flying in mountains (well high ground!) in IMC. The point is at what height does the IMC start?

It is entirely possible to fly across high ground VMC below a solid ceiling. It needs to be high enough and you need to really, really know where you are. But it is very commonly carried out.

The 'received wisdom' seems to be if you enter IMC you climb and get above safety altitude. Well nice idea, but reallt difficult to achieve.

If you end up in a 'dead end', the chances of outclimbing the terrain are pretty poor. Most light singles struggle to get 1000fpm - as a gradient it might suit railways, to outclimb the average hill it is completely inadequate.

If you run out of VFR conditions you have a very short time to decide whether you throw the dice and hope you are flying up the valley whilst you climb or you force land.

A forced landing up a hill can result in a ground speed of virtually nothing. fly up the slope, hold off and then land - the ground seped if carried out well is virtually nothing.

You do need practice at landing on steep gradients - but once you have that you will neverr be able to understand why airfields are on level ground. The gradient makes an enourmous difference - you can literally park on a hillside. Getting the aircraft will need a helicopter but you will step out and walk to a phone (so long as you have sensible footwear and clothing!).

It would be great to simly fly over the top - but my aircraft does not have the ceiling or icing protection to allow that. I can fly through the valleys - it needs care and occasionally needs the odd U turn. Going IMC, when a precise heading is necessary - probalby with a turn, is all that stops contact with cumulo-granite is not a smart move, I'll land!

[IO540]

Getting the aircraft will need a helicopter

Is this actually ever done? I don't know... I would expect the thing to be written off if it cannot be retrieved with a tractor etc.

[Sam Rutherford]

If I ever find myself inadvertent IMC in a valley, in the mountains, I'm not sure that aircraft retrieval post crash is going to be high on my list of concerns! :)

Safe flights.

Sam.

[mary meagher]

The only thing more dangerous than showing off is amateur filming of another aircraft in flight.

This was the root cause of the idiocy. All their attention was on filming the other aircraft. Like towing a water skier with everybody looking astern.....

[gasax]

Actually where I live aircraft are either recoveed by helicopter or stripped by 'walkers' and others.

The point is that your priorities should be the fragile tissue and flesh. Sometimes it is difficult to get to the nub of it but - a low speed forced landing or even crash if carried out under marginally forced conditions is a hell or a sight better than smashing into granite at 100 plus knots

[Maoraigh1]

A C177 was caught in downdraft which it could not outclimb, flying south from Inverness in the early 90s. It was VMC on top, 7500'? but was pulled down, into the 6000'? cloud, and below the summit levels. After sighting rock off the wingtip, it hit an updraft, and was carried back up. PPL/IMC and CPL/IR?/Instructor cancelled flight and returned very shaken to base. No accident so no AAIB report. There was a description in the then HAC Newsletter.
Cloud can form suddenly when a packet of moister air rises as it meets rising ground, giving an unwary pilot inadvertant IMC.

[IO540]

For him to get pulled down by 1500ft you'd be looking at a wind speed of at least 15-20kt (-500fpm assumed).

Not a lot.

[gasax]

In my 'back yard' there was a G115 which went into a loch on a windy day - weather was IMC above the tops, below them very active. so active that even ground effect did not seem to say them (instructor and student).

Less of an IMC issue - but when the wind is blowing the ceiling can be very variable. The wae effect can result in a classic 'box canyon' situation - where it is either a 180 degree turn or a froced landing.

But the critical aspectg is than you have seconds to decide to keep flying or force land. And generally we do not force land.....

[Stephen Furner]

I checked the stalling and mushing down this afternoon to make sure I had not been over optimistic about the decent rate.:confused: This was with a French manufactured Cessna 172H.

Heading into the prevailing wind with the stall warner at full voice and an indicated airspeed showing 40 Knots over several runs the aircraft mushed down at between 500 and 600 feet per minute.:O

When decending in this configuration the aircraft was not directionally very stable. If this was attempted in a narrow valley I believe there is a good possibility of drifting into the valley sides since directional control was minimal.:eek:

[IO540]

Yes, at such low speeds the controls don't work well.

And a level turn increases the wing loading and increases the stall speed, so it is extra risky.

But, the faster you go the greater the minimum achievable turn radius, so if having to do a tight 180 it is better to slow down.

[bjornhall]

Totally impractical suggestion: With a hammerhead you could make a 180 degree turn no matter how narrow the valley is... :ok:

Told you it was impractical!

[IO540]

You could also make a very tight turn if you had room below you, to unload the wings during the turn.

Needs an understanding of how the stall speed depends on wing loading.

It's a good tactic for flying tight turns onto final (scares the passengers though :) ).

[mm_flynn]

I checked the stalling and mushing down this afternoon to make sure I had not been over optimistic about the decent rate.:confused: This was with a French manufactured Cessna 172H.

Heading into the prevailing wind with the stall warner at full voice and an indicated airspeed showing 40 Knots over several runs the aircraft mushed down at between 500 and 600 feet per minute.:O
I suspect this was a power on stall/mush scenario. If you add another 20% to your forward speed you now have lots of control and minimal vertical speed (so the net total deceleration is about the same - but in a direction your body can stand much better). Also, flying rather than mushing you have a much better chance of arriving wings level and skidding over the rocks rather than catching a wing and cartwheeling.

Clearly you want to land along the surface going slow, rather than into a cliff going fast ... but 'stalling it in' seems to always be a worse answer than flying it in.


Also, when you hit the ground you want the engine at low power/off so when the prop hits something it doesn't rip the engine out and then chop through the cockpit before it stops running. This means there is a last second chop of the power (and consequent drop like a rock) necessary when stalling it in.

In terms of landing in a short distance, unless I have made a mistake, an approach at 60 knots is about 30m/s and with a 5g average deceleration, that would take about 30 feet to crash in (about 1 airplane length!). Well achievable if slidding up a hill.

[Runaway Gun]

I'm quite shocked at this thought of stalling the aircraft into an upwind hill.

And even if you did impact the hill at only 40 or 50kts (hopefully wings level) and survive, what then? Every American movie that has a car chase concludes with the Mustang plunging off the side of the cliff for at least about 800feet before it burts into flame.

Best idea is to utilise less Superhero Biggles skills, and decide earlier to turn around before you reach such a limiting position.

And before that, fly up close to one valley wall, ensuring that you always have turning room available to get out. Better yet, do a course in mountain flying.

[BackPacker]

Totally impractical suggestion: With a hammerhead you could make a 180 degree turn no matter how narrow the valley is...

A hammerhead (or stall turn as it's known here) still requires approximately two wingspans. Whereas a half cuban eight or an immelman (or something inbetween those two) requires only one. Theoretically. :ok:

Yeah, I know. Impractical anyway. Better use your superior judgement to avoid needing to use your superior skill and all that.

[dont overfil]

C172 pitot has a large position error at low speeds.
DO.

[M609]

For some reason it looks like people well versed in mountain flying are the ones that chicken out first turing back/staying on the ground etc IMHO.

I´ve seen people from far away set off VFR in cloud capped valleys in alpine terrain, in condtions when local pilots that know the area well would stay on the couch at home! Some also set off after having been warned by said couch wearing pilots that conditions might not be suitable for flight. :ouch:

Some only made it after a certain amount of help from ATC after going IMC and climbing to continue IFR. (Why not IFR to begin with? I guess the 0-isotherm below MSA was a factor)

I would not like to be a passenger on a C-182 doing a climb from abborted VFR on the 100ft valley floor to get above the 5000ft peaks in IMC. Hope they had a good GPS with terrain info to assist on the way up! :sad:

[172driver]

I think a safe pilot should know more than one way to fly.

On that we can agree - and also how NOT to fly :E

[gasax]

The whole issue with flying in mountains is that conditions can be changeable - very changeable.

It is by not means unusual to find the 'ceiling' is highly variable and what was 'fat and happy' one moment becomes very difficult the next.

I have never had to force land up a hill - but I know how to (from practicing on a very steep runway) and if the options were an aerobatic manoeurve or a force landing it would be an interesting decision.

However we have real evidence of aircraft in this area successfully forced landing with no injuries, simply by pulling up when the 'pilot' spotted cumulo-granite.

Never flying is a very good way of avoiding these hazards - sizeable detours is my preferred tactic, but forced landings do work.

As for quoting movies for the outcome of any course of action?? Strangely most of these vehicles usually catch fire before they hit anything. Scouting for locations with a clear drop and convenient camera locations (and clearing up afterward) costs the film production companies a fortune - no wonder they try and spice things up a bit!

[M609]

It is by not means unusual to find the 'ceiling' is highly variable and what was 'fat and happy' one moment becomes very difficult the next.


Indeed, and such knowledge is why seasoned mountain flyers tend to add a little safety margin VX wise.

9999 -RA BKN025 Q1013 TEMPO 7000 RA

That's quite OK for VFR in the flatlands, not so much in the mountains IMHO

One should also consider the fact that you loose the horizon when flying in alpine terrain capped with clouds, and that has caused some disorientation for pilots in the past.

[172driver]

For some reason it looks like people well versed in mountain flying are the ones that chicken out first turing back/staying on the ground etc IMHO.

Indeed, and here's why:

The whole issue with flying in mountains is that conditions can be changeable - very changeable.

:D

[IO540]

9999 -RA BKN025 Q1013 TEMPO 7000 RA

That's quite OK for VFR in the flatlands, not so much in the mountains IMHOespecially as those conditions are probably a warm front which will have tops ~ FL250 so no way to reach VMC above.

I keep meaning to fly to Trondheim, but most days can't even see Norway on the MSLP chart, under the collection of fronts :) And if it looks OK, finding clear weather a day or two later is much harder.

On clear days the views must be stunning but I'd imagine one gets only a small # of opportunities during the year.

I am a great believer in flying straight over the top of mountains. FL180 takes one ~ 7000ft above the main bit of the Alps and that should be OK with winds of about 30kt. The other day I flew over the middle bit of the Pyrenees at FL140 and about 5000ft over most of the terrain and while the wind was 35kt there was practically zero turbulence (I was quite suprised).

[Piper_Driver]

A hammerhead (or stall turn as it's known here) still requires approximately two wingspans. Whereas a half cuban eight or an immelman (or something inbetween those two) requires only one. Theoretically. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Yeah, I know. Impractical anyway. Better use your superior judgement to avoid needing to use your superior skill and all that.

I heard a story from an well known Vietnam war ace who was flying safety pilot for a cross country voyage with an underage kid (one of those publicity stunts done several years ago before one kid got herself killed). He had to use an immelman to extract his charge after she flew her 152 into a box canyon. It worked, but only because of his superior flying skills - he headed the top gun school at one time in his career. I wouldn't recommend trying this one at home. BTW - he told me that flying with the kid was the dumbest thing he'd ever done in his flying career. :ugh:

[Pace]

We are missing the point. The thread talks about inadvertant entry into IMC. Okay as one poster said "how can you inadvertantly enter IMC in daylight" well you could be in the cockpit head down writing only to look up and only see white! But maybe unwillingly is a better description deciding to take to the clouds and climb. The lesser of two evils?

But this thread is about being in cloud not under it.

In that situation you cannot just land unsure whether you are descending into cumulus granitus.

You may climb straight ahead if you are pretty damn sure you are flying up a valley. I still hold that in cloud surrounded by hills your best option is to climb in a spiral trying to stay in one place. Even throw the book away and steepen the bank to keep the radius tighter its not that difficult for a competant IR pilot.

There maybe hill slopes either side but remember they are slopes so the higher you go the wider the gap to the hills.

This is a desperate solution to a desperate situation and minimises your chance of hitting terrain it doesnt eliminate it.
If anyone has a better option for IN CLOUD I would love to know what????

And yes you do have to be good on intrument flying and have good situational awareness.

Pace

[Maoraigh1]

With the surface of the lochs calm and reflecting, I hit moderate turbulence at the east end of Loch Sheil on Monday. There was a strong updraft at one point at the side of Loch Affric. I'm not an instrument pilot, but suggest those considering the spiral climb try it under the hood, with a safety pilot, at a safe altitude, in turbulence. Especially if using steeper than usual turns. (A GPS will enable you to download your track, and see if you kept clear of a virtual hill)
Winds in the hills are unpredictable, and it won't take much to put you into a ridge. Turbulence is usually present somewhere. Often enough to make me (VFR) restrict speed and manoevering.
Staying out of cloud, unless you are at safety altitude, is essential.

[execExpress]

"And yes you do have to be good on intrument flying and have good situational awareness."

errm, and have just entered cloud inadvertantly amongst hills below MSA.

[Pace]

errm, and have just entered cloud inadvertantly amongst hills below MSA.

The fact is it can and does happen. Example I flew IFR to Inverness. Front lay west to East with a block of CB with few gaps. Chose a gap visually to go through and landed at inverness.
Aircraft had no weather radar. Decided looking at the sat images that flying low level along loch ness to clear the weather to the west was my better option then turning and flying over the isles past the IOM and to WAL.
Initially stayed over the loch at 1000 ft agl. but lowering cloud and visibility made me change my mind and climb above the MSA with a rough ride but knowing I would clear weather to the west.

With due respect pilots do get into situations for one reason or other to think otherwise is not realistic or are comments made by fair weather flyers.

The clip that started this thread showed a huge mistake which could have been a disaster. Its all very well to say pilots shouldnt do this or that but they do and I thought that is what we were talking about.

Pace

[execExpress]

Agree - people can and do end up in these predicaments - my take was: how realistic is for such to have then demonstrate excellent IR skills and good situational awareness when the moment before they went inadvertant IMC in the hills below MSA. And quite possibly having a bad judgement day on so many levels prior to that!

Numptie to sky-god in a flash, just like expected to recover an inadvertant spin

(btw going IMC was never in the plan, or part of a plan B, is my assumption wrt inadvertant IMC).

[Stephen Furner]

C172 pitot has a large position error at low speeds.
DO.

Good point about accuracy of measurements:ok:. Not only are the static and dynamic pressure instruments at risk of increased error in unusual attitudes and at the extremes of their performance range but the observation by the pilot is constrained by the need to safely fly the aircraft while making the observations. I had a yoke mounted Garmin GPS 96 running during the flight. I have downloaded the information it recorded to provide a check of the observations while flying the stall and mushing down and have put some graphs of the data on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2025023&id=1118091118&l=b2b72910cc (http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2025023&id=1118091118&l=b2b72910cc)

I used Garmin MapSource to display the track and profile of the route I flew. From this I was able to identify one of the stalls in the data set. I copied just the data for the stall and clime out into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to graph out the height against time. This was to allow me identify a section of the stalled descent that is clearly where the aircraft is mushing down so I could get a measurement of the rate it was descending.

The measurement section I chose starts at 16:05:17 with the aircraft at 3467 feet and finishes at 16:06:23 with the aircraft at 2705 feet. The rate of decent was therefore 693 feet per minute. A simple linear regression line through the data shows it to be a stable descent along a straight line since the R-squared is 0.94. Which I interpret to mean that only about 6% of the variation in this data was due to a deviation from the linear trend line.

Before 16:05:17 my interpretation of the graph is that the aircraft is losing lift and entering the stall mushing. The section in the descent after 16:06:23 is likely to be where stall recovery has been initiated and the aircraft is being reconfigured to clime out.

The ground speed variation during the descent was not stable as can be seen from the very low R-squared value. It is likely that this is simply reflecting the prevailing wind conditions. I carried out the stall into wind over a reservoir in Essex just south of Colchester on the 25th Oct. The weather at the time was clear but windy. A nearby local private automated weather station in Colchester reports reading 270 degrees 5 to 10 Knots at the time of the flight http://www.jbest.net/weather/weatherSearch.aspx?fd=25%2f10%2f2009 (http://www.jbest.net/weather/weatherSearch.aspx?fd=25%2f10%2f2009)

I have included graphs of the landing and roll out at the end of the flight to provide a basis for a rough comparison for this aircraft between the descent rate and ground speed for the stalled configuration and a conventional landing. Since the aircraft was flown down final with 30 degrees of flap at 65 Knots indicated air speed the ground speed shows a head wind was present of around 10 Knots.

[RatherBeFlying]

There a number of Canadian approaches where the missed approach requires a shuttle climb, i.e. a climb in a hold.

The hold is of course based upon a holding fix or two which allows you to use your ADF, VOR, DME or GPS to stay well clear of the rocks.

With some of these airports you have to use the missed approach to leave in IMC.

The entire approach is flight tested in VFR to ensure correct signal reception.

Having looked at approach design criteria, it scares me to hear people advocating tight spiral climbs. 15 kt. of wind and several circles later where are you going to be:eek:

[Pace]

Having looked at approach design criteria, it scares me to hear people advocating tight spiral climbs. 15 kt. of wind and several circles later where are you going to be

ratherBeFlying

To be in solid cloud for whatever reason unsure of position surrounded by hills or mountains would be very scary.

So what would you do in that situation if a tight spiral climb scares you so much? would you climb straight ahead hoping you can out climb the mountains? would you make a 180 remembering you still have to make a turn where the hill slopes put you closer? or would you cross everything and hope there was no bang? solution please.

Yes I have flown IFR departures where a spiral climb is required to 10000 feet before setting course. Doesnt that hint at something to you??

Pace

[IO540]

Having looked at approach design criteria, it scares me to hear people advocating tight spiral climbs. 15 kt. of wind and several circles later where are you going to be

With a decent GPS, you will know where you are.

Without a GPS, you should not be in IMC anyway (21st century)

[Droopystop]

Pace,
With due respect pilots do get into situations for one reason or other to think otherwise is not realistic or are comments made by fair weather flyers.

Very true. But we know getting into those situations is wrong and preventable.

If you were to be presented with your Inverness scenario again, what would you do, same again or something else?

[Pace]

If you were to be presented with your Inverness scenario again, what would you do, same again or something else?

Droopystop

exactly the same as it was the correct call for the conditions. IFR airways in the freezing level with all the embedded CBs and NO radar was not an option.

That left IFR below airways batting through CBs but not in the freezing level or VFR along loch ness towards clear weather to the west.

The option there was was to take plan B and fly IFR below CAS which was what I took when VFR was no longer safely possible.

I was always taught never do anything in flying without an out as that becomes a game of russian roulette and that I never play.

The difference was I knew exactly where I was but still spiralled up before setting course.

10540 talks of GPS ? all well and good if you have a unit with terrain etc. Not so good with a King 90B or even worse!

there are those who have to fly (within reason) and those who dont.

I am afraid that with all the armchair pilot discussions pilots do get into a mess real world and unsure of position, in cloud surrounded by hills/ mountains.

A tight spiral climb would be my option. Other pilots can do what they want thats their choice.

Pace

[Bla Bla Bla]

Some people on here obviously not actually operated SEP in big mountains, all this talk of hammerheads and tight spiral climbs etc etc.

If you fly in a big mountain environment you do not enter solid IMC ever when VFR, and who ever said they maybe head down writing when it happens has no clue. You spend all your time flying tight up against the side of the valley wall checking behind you and down other valleys as they pass to make sure you can turn around before entering this crap. It is so important to check the weather is not blowing in behind you and cutting off your exit, no head down at any time apart from a quick glance at the instruments.

It worries me that so many people are chatting about what they think they would do if they got into IMC in the mts instead what they would do to never get into IMC in the mts. You can fly under solid overcast with a good level of safety, but you must must must keep your escape route available at all times. I spent a couple of years in the Southern Alps of NZ flying commercially, average height of the peaks is probably around 9000ft complete with weather coming up from Antarctica!

[Droopystop]

I just wondered if a night in Inverness would have been a better option for a ppl?

[Droopystop]

Just a thought (whilst i was walking the dog in the pouring rain). Allow me to put my commercial pilot's hat on for a moment.

If I were to be doing a passenger flight and ended up in having to or indeed inadvertently (whatever that means) go IMC below MSA, I could be disciplined. I would have been in direct contravention of the JAR (or whatever they call themselves this month) compliant Company Ops manual. The CAA could potentially have a case for pulling my employers AOC.

In other words, I have to make sure I remain VMC at all times below MSA (except of course when making an instrument approach or in case of emergency). I think I would have a hard case to prove that going IMC in a valley was an emergency. In short I have to be able to go VFR and stay VFR or go IFR the whole way or not go at all.

This of course is a private flyers forum, and I don't think that private flyers have such strict rules for this case. Except of course the rules for entering the Darwin awards.

[IO540]

Droopystop - I agree.

However, the kind of commercial operation which you may be half thinking of does this all the time... scud running at 400ft all the way across the Channel :)

Of course the pilot is the cream of the CAA cream, a class 1 medical every 6 months, etc. and no autopilot because fitting one would cost a fortune and real pilots don't need one :)

I am not suprised that, without pressurisation etc, these flights operate only over the water and not from say the south east to N Wales. Operating over any terrain, their despatch % would be pretty poor.

[Pace]

I just wondered if a night in Inverness would have been a better option for a ppl?

DroopySnoot and Bla Bla Bla

My last post on this. Firstly I am an ATP and have thousands of hours in multi piston aircraft in all weather, all over Scotland in summer winter day and Night. I am also a Captain on Citation Jets.

Go back to the beginning of the thread and read what started it.

It was an aircraft clip flying in cloud which hit bushes on a hill side.

The thread is not about avoiding the situation it was about what to do if someone ever gets in a situation IN cloud unsure of position surrounded by hills.

I have made a suggestion which was to keep the aircraft as close to one spot as possible until enough hight had been aquired to get clearance over the terrain.

I hope you never get in that situation or anyone else as it is a dire situation to be in with no 100% safe options.

Mumble as much as you want but please offer some alternatives to what we were talking about as I would love to know what you would do????

Pace

[englishal]

In other words, I have to make sure I remain VMC at all times below MSA (except of course when making an instrument approach or in case of emergency).
I can think of at least one SID which you are below MSA with 11000 peaks around, and the SID says "climb direct <VOR> if not at MSA by <VOR> hold and climb until at MSA"...

[Droopystop]

Pace,

Sorry, I didn't think this was getting personal.

What would I do? Never ever go IMC in a valley. That is my point. There is, as you say, no 100% assured way out. Therefore you make absolutely sure you don't go in. To try to pretend there is general plan for getting out of such a situation is folly (and not a little frightening coming from an ATPL). An escape plan has to be time, place and type specific and may not work. If there is something to learn from this thread, its don't go there in first place.

If we are going to play top trumps, I have 1000 hours SAR experience in Scotland, plus thousands of heavy twin rotary time, almost all IFR at or below 3000'.


AL,

SIDs don't count - they are afterall designed to get you from the ground to MSA in whatever the weather, and I am sure the case you mention ensures terrain separation.

IO540,

I wasn't really thinking of any sort of operator other than thinking what I have to comply with. I have no experience of fixedwing ops manuals, but I am pretty certain that IMC below MSA is a no no (JAR OPS requirement) and VFR weather conditions are well defined. If the customer only hires a VFR plane, then he gets what he pays for and if the weather is not VFR, then captain has to say no and the customer has to live with that. I guess I am very lucky working for a company that respects a captain's decision not to go on the grounds of safety. In fact we are expected to cancel a flight if it's not safe or not legal. If that isn't the case elsewhere, then the CAA isn't doing it's job of protecting the passengers.

[Pace]

If we are going to play top trumps, I have 1000 hours SAR experience in Scotland, plus thousands of heavy twin rotary time, almost all IFR at or below 3000'.

Droopy

No not playing top trumps. Yes I totally agree with you that avoiding that situation has to be no 1 priority.

Having said that we have to be realistic and realise that there are hundreds of lives that have been lost in aviation because a pilot has done something he should not have done or has got into a situation he should not be in.

I still hold that if anyone is stupid enough to find themselves lost and in cloud below hills/mountains for whatever reason then unless they are flying a fighter jet which they can point skywards and go up like a rocket their best way out is to contain the aircraft as close to one spot and climb to a safe altitude.
Whether thats in a holding pattern or spiral (I would go for a spiral with slightly increased bank until above the MSA.
What are the alternatives? climb in any direction with your legs crossed?

Avoid YES but sadly we have to be realistic to peoples failings too. As we know most accidents are pilot ERROR and it would be great if they were taught to and avoided those errors but they dont.

Pace

[gasax]

The discussion is interesting but perhaps I can bring it back toward the private flying arena?

99% of private pilots do not have an instrument qualification - so promising as a climb to MSA appears it is simply not a viable option fofr the vast majority of private pilots.

From my point of view (1000 hrs of VFR flying which I have paid for!) climbing - be it along a glen or in a sprial is unlikely to have a high potential of success. My aircraft is not a great instrument platform - if it were a C172 or cherrytree then it wouldd make more sense - but it still leaves a transit off some 50 miles and then a descent - potentially all IMC, possibly with ice and certainly with turbulence.

So my options are a 'canyon turn' or if the route behind me has closed, a forced landing. The latter is a last resort to avoid the IMC option.

[M609]

Was it 178 seconds they quoted some years ago regarding the time the average VFR only pilot had before disorientation set in after entry into IMC?

Myself, I will be doing the same as gasax, but I have no intention of having to do so in the first place! *knock on wood*

[IO540]

99% of private pilots do not have an instrument qualification - so promising as a climb to MSA appears it is simply not a viable option fofr the vast majority of private pilots.

The CAA stated (2008, I was present at the presentation) that about 23k IMC Ratings have been issued since c. 1970. OK, a lot of these will have been issued as honorary to CAA CPLs etc, but there are only about 20k PPLs in the UK with valid medicals, and since many of these are self evidently pilots who have been flying since WW2 :) (the early attrition rate in GA is massive and as a result most of those flying have been at it for yonks) I think that a lot more than 1% have at some stage held the IMCR. How many I can't guess (5% to 20% maybe) and most will be lapsed but that doesn't mean they cannot hold a plane the right way up. Also, the training sufficient to do the most basic instrument flight doesn't take long - far far less than getting the IMCR.

Was it 178 seconds they quoted some years ago regarding the time the average VFR only pilot had before disorientation set in after entry into IMC?

That was a famous magazine article from many years ago, in the USA, but I don't think that result was meaningful in this respect. They picked pilots who really had absolutely zero IMC time (IIRC, one of them had ~ 2000hrs TT, which sounds incredible) and they did a subtle instrument failure on them.

Obviously I agree one should not do IMC if not instrument flight capable, but I do think it takes far less to do it and get away with it (the alternative being death, basically) in order to get out of IMC, than most would think.

[englishal]

99% of private pilots do not have an instrument qualification - so promising as a climb to MSA appears it is simply not a viable option for the vast majority of private pilots.
Probably more like 40-50% of US "private" flyer's (i.e. those flying for fun, regardless of licence type) have an IR, and a good proportion of UK private flyer's have an IMC rating as a minimum.

This video was made in the USA, and these idiots were flying a more than capable aeroplane in IMC so I'd assume one held and instrument qualification and that they just didn't / couldn't get an IFR clearance. Which brings one more point - rules. If I was in that situation, screw the rules, I'd just climb, even if it meant busting airspace.

178 seconds is effectively referring to "no gyro" - or someone who has no idea how to interpret them. I'd imagine a PPL who has a working AI would probably stand a better chance of survival above MSA than scud running in valleys at 100 kts.

[Runaway Gun]

Never let rules get in the way of saving your life.

Take whatever action you need, then if you have a free moment, squawk emergency, put out a mayday or whatever works, but don't sit around worrying about broken rules.

[Bla Bla Bla]

Pace,

I respect your flying experience but I'm afraid Scotland although very rough terrain it is not really a big mountain environment, however it does have plenty of **** weather, used to live, fly and climb there. As someone said earlier flying IFR in a mountain region does not count for bugger all in terms of mountain flying experience.

Come to NZ and you can see what it is like to have huge mountains towering above you with weather that traps you in seconds and down drafts that the local ATR 72's struggle to deal with.

I know you think I am straying from the point but having actually operated in those conditions in bloody huge mountains allot it is quite simply about not getting into it rather than how to get out of it.

And as you said you wanted know what I would do well here it is, I would turn around before in happened. If it was an extremely crappy day I would drink coffee on the ground and roll my eye's at anyone apart from the local helicopter rescue guys who took off into it.

If some of you are interested in mountain flying the best book I found was: Flying the Mountains by Fletcher Anderson.

Pace, I don't want to get into a tit for tat as Pprune always goes this way. happy flying.:ok:

[Pace]

Come to NZ and you can see what it is like to have huge mountains towering above you with weather that traps you in seconds and down drafts that the local ATR 72's struggle to deal with.

Bla Bla Bla

The stupid thing is that we usually hold the same opinions with the ones that we are arguing with maybe just not clear with each other and coming from slightly different angles ;)

I too have flown a lot over mountains in destinations around the Alps and Pyrennies and landed business jets at locations like St Moritz, Lugano, Chambery, LJLJ (Can never spell Lubliajana :ugh: as well as ferrying around big chunks of the world.

The point here is we are not really talking about 10000 plus mountains but being below any piece of cumulus granitus which can equally do total damage if its sticking in a cloud at 1500 feet as at 15000 feet.

Infact the higher the mountains the more important it becomes to spiral up vertically should anyone ever be in the unlikely and unfortunate position of being in cloud, out of sight of the ground and unsure of position amidst high terrain.

How would a PPL ever get into that situation? unbelievable but it does happen!

Pilot X was on a fishing holiday and was flying his 1970 Piper home the 300 nm. She was an old bird which had an old trimble GPS fitted.
Pilot X checked the weather which was good for his departure and arrival at his destination. he held a lapsed IMCR but was happy to trundle back VFR.

His route ran through 100 nm of hills and mountains ranging from 1500 to 4500feet. Pilot X had to be at an important work meeting the next morning and had overstayed his time fishing.

At first all was fine. he cruised happily along under a 2500 foot cloudbase and fairly good vis.

Approaching the hills ahead he was alarmed that the visibility had dropped and that some of the hills ahead were bathed in cloud.

"Never mind its localised he thought. Press on and things will improve". He knew the weather at his destination was good so no problem.

The visibility got worse and Pilot X was finding it harder to plot his route along the vallies. he was now down at 1200-1500 feet keeping VFR below cloud.

The vis was now bad and pilot X became more alarmed as wisps of scud cloud floated past underneith the aircraft.

He should turn back but he had to be at the meeting and Oh how he would kick himself if 10 miles ahead there was CAVOK.

Pilot X looked down through the scud trying to pick up landmarks as it got thicker.

Now his eyes were glued to the map on his lap. He looked up as he felt G to find the aircraft turning and pure white through the windows.
My God he thought I am in solid cloud at 1200 feet.................

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN HIS SITUATION? Okay he is a complete idiot but there are plenty about!

Pace

[belowradar]

Pilot X is in an old bird and is not current on IMC flying so this is what he should do based on the scenario given.....

1 - Plan a VFR only flight with landing alternatives and VFR escape routes for the flight

2 - Definitely not press on hoping that weather is localised but have a clear strategy in mind for deteriorating weather and viz

3 - Execute plan B as soon as it look necessary

4 - Bear in mind that a precautionary landing (albeit with limited choices) may be preferable to dying by hitting the side of the valley

He / She should keep it VFR only and have sensible minima in mind which are more conservative than normal low level flying.:ok:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Can never spell Lubliajana
Easy! - My log book has it spelt B - R - N - I - K.

[Maoraigh1]

How many PPLs who qualify for an IMC rating do enough instrument flying to keep current? (I don't mean keep the IMC legal - I mean regular instrument flying to avoid rust). I let mine lapse years ago, although then I had a share in an instrument capable aircraft, as I realised I was not going to fly instrument frequently enough.

[gasax]

I can only concur. Of all the private pilots I know not one has a current IMC, three (out of the 10) definitely had an IMC at some time, but let it lapse years ago.

I doubt any of us would be up to a tight spiral climb and thirty minute transit with potentially an IFR arrival. I'd like to think I could manage - but then I'd also like to think I'm handsome, rich and irresistable - then I wake up!!!

[englishal]

Someone who has become uncurrent but has done Instrument training is unlikely to die "within 175 seconds" when flying into a cloud, unless they also have a gyro failure. With a working AI basic attitude instrument flying is not rocket science and if one set cruise power and just concentrated on the AI then likely one would survive.

[Runaway Gun]

Fair point. But now throw in the factors of map reading, ascertaining the MSA, possibly scrambling for a frequency, and sheer terror of fear of possibly hitting cumulo-granite, and see what happens to the scan then.

[IO540]

This is where a decent big-screen (not one of the little x96 Garmins) GPS comes in. You can see where you are clearly at all times, and can concentrate on the instrument scan.

[Pace]

but then I'd also like to think I'm handsome, rich and irresistable - then I wake up!!!
Gasax

Shucks you have ruined it for me ;) I was sure you were the guy who played the Captain surrounded by the unlikely to be Virgin Airstewardesses (Cabin crew) on that Virgin TV ad? :E

As a tip to those who are out of practice or who cannot fly enough on instruments to keep current Microsoft Flight Simulator or one of the other instrument flying programmes for sale are an excellent tool to keep you up to speed. You can even practice tight spiral climbs :E

Pace

[mary meagher]

Now there's an excellent idea, Pace. Everybody who contributed to this thread do a bit of spiral ascending on a computer. I used to have an IR, infrequently refreshed, and a courtesy IMC to go with it but nobody would let me play in the airspace so I said to heck with it and stay VFR.

And go mountain scraping in gliders in Wales (Talgarth). I could tell you some interesting stories about flying into terrain up there, never mind just flying into IMC. Friend of mine managed to land his K6 on the only bit of furze that wasn't studded with rocks, took half the gliding club and the local mountain rescue chaps all next weekend to trek it down in bits.

Qualified as a very good landing because he was able to fly it again.....

[Pace]

And go mountain scraping in gliders in Wales (Talgarth). I could tell you some interesting stories about flying into terrain up there

Mary

I think we could both tell each other interesting stories about those areas ;) I even know some of the sheep by name :O

Pace

[172driver]

I even know some of the sheep by name

Now, now, Pace, that may need some explanation.......:E


couldn't resist.....

[Pace]

172

Not into sheep ;) other than eating them but there are plenty who are up around there.

Where do you think the term shaggy sheep comes from :E

Pace

[IO540]

UK PPL instructors tend to know the sheep down below by their first names - that's why they rarely venture past the nearest crease on their maps :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

took ... and the local mountain rescue chaps all next weekend to trek it down in bits
That must have cost more than a few pints!!

[sternone]

Quick update on the topic : The FAA is NOT going to further investigate this matter.

I have information that I cannot release that this video might not be completely what everybody think it is.